Essay: A future I would want to live in

News & General Discussion
1

I ran across this blog post today: A future I would want to live in, by game designer Brie Code.

It argues that too much of our science fiction, and in particular our games, are based on dystopian visions of the future. It further argues that instead of basing all our drama and engagement on the fight-or-flight response, we could base it instead on the “tend-and-befriend” response of forming and nurturing bonds with others. And it ends by painting a very interesting and positive picture of the near-term future (maybe 20-30 years from now, I’d guess).

I don’t agree with all the details in this essay, but I certainly agree with the broad strokes — dystopian stories are essentially negative goal-setting, focusing on the worst in humanity. On an individual level, we can certainly exert some control over our destinies by where we choose to focus; I see no reason why that shouldn’t be true at a societal level too. Indeed, it’s not hard to think of very concrete examples where focusing on fear and hate has led societies to make some very poor decisions, which breed more fear and hate. So sure, this makes dystopian futures believable — but also demonstrates that we have control. Maybe if we focused more on positive futures (Star Trek, I’m looking at you), then we’d have a better chance of actually creating that sort of future for ourselves and our descendants.

And then there’s the more concrete, business-of-the-games-industry argument that most of our current games only appeal to current gamers. Practically the entire house is built on a foundation of mass violence and murder, and many designers today still think this is the only sellable foundation for a game. This despite games like The Sims and Wii Play being among the top 10 highest-grossing games of all time.

But enough from me. Go read the article — it’s long, but worth it! And then please share your thoughts.

8 Likes
2

Thanks, Joe.

I am going to read this now and respond back. I honestly think there is a market out there for games that are not all dark and grim. When I look in my Steam Box I see none of those games in there. My daughters have none of those games in there. My son does have a few. As long as we continue making games where death and destruction both in the setting and the game play are the focus, we risk losing out on a market that at the moment is being ignored for the most part. Yes, it is not hard to find short cutsie games that leave you with a good feeling, but some of us want complex games that challenge us and leave us with a story we will remember for a very long time. Some of us get tired of playing a game where we feel threatened all the time.

Good example is TV shows. They are getting more and more like many of the games out there. While I love Stranger Things and Game of Thrones, I take long breaks from those and watch older shows or comedies or even some nice dramas that make me feel like the world it not such a bad place after all. I think we all need those at times.

More positive messages, and games that require cooperation to overcome adversaries might find a welcome audience.

5 Likes
3

Yeah, I think in large part the focus on violence as a source of drama is just plain laziness. It’s easy, quick, a known formula. Putting that aside requires deeper thinking to come up with an interesting story.

In the original Star Trek series, Roddenberry had a hard time at first getting the writers to understand that they couldn’t make plots based on interpersonal conflict. They crew were professionals; they got along and did their jobs. There could be a bit of minor grousing (like McCoy’s comments about the green-blooded Vulcan), but whenever push came to shove, everybody worked together, respected, and helped each other. This drove the writers nuts, as they had to dig deeper to think up interesting storylines.

But they did, and it launched one of the biggest, most enduring franchises ever.

5 Likes
4

I remember quite a bit interpersonal conflict in the later Star Trek Series. I actually find conflict a good thing. It allows the writers to resolve that conflict, in a good or bad way. Even professionals have conflicts with other people but they know when to put that aside for the good of the company/starship/whatever.

A sterile world where everyone gets along perfectly can be boring and unrealistic. It also misses a great way to make the viewers/players connect more deeply with the characters.

Might be why the original Star Trek is my least favorite of the series. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
5

A fair point. It could be that Roddenberry had to push a little too far in the utopian direction, just to get it through his writers’ thick skulls!

3 Likes
6

Sorry, but TL;DR. Maybe later though, the topic is interesting.

I’m mostly chiming in to raise the question how much this maybe is a cultural trope of western countries. In japanese anime culture I get the impression that content focused on positivity is much more common. E.g. the anime show “New Game” makes even working at a big games company and doing crunch-time look like fun. It’s - for a TV show - remarkably accurate in some of the specifics of gamedev work and the tools being used. Another one that I would recommend is “Food Wars” - a show about high-stakes cooking duels and food so good it makes people’s clothes fly off.

I sometimes get a bit of that “reality isn’t that bad after all” feeling when I play some of the darkest dystopian stuff, like the Utulek mission in the latest Deus Ex, or games like The Last of Us.

I think that me feeling more weird about recommending a cutesy all-female-cast, low-conflict anime like New Game, than recommending a hyper-violent murder-fest like The Last of Us, must be a cultural thing. I can’t explain it any other way.

From Season 2 of New Game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC1dLv37mWc

And a supercut from The Last of Us - Somewhat big plot-spoiler in the last third of the video, the rest seems to just be kills and deaths. I didn’t watch it all. And to be clear- that’s not at all an accurate representation of the game, because much more of it is slow paced, and it only reached its critical acclaim because atmosphere, world-building and characters are stellar in this game. I just picked this to make a point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQClGZvX5F8

I’ve wasted quite a bit of time looking through clips from both, and I can say I really enjoy both a lot, but in different ways. It makes me want to re-watch “New Game” again (would be the third time I see the first season), and replay The Last of Us (would be the third time I play through it).
I’m not sure both themes would work equally well for me if the medium was reversed. I’ve stopped watching the Walking Dead and several other shows that are rather grim and dark, and I can’t imagine a game version of that anime show, that I’d like to play, because gameplay-wise I’m really into games with lots of stabbing and shooting people. It’s a more instantly gratifying feedback-loop to press a button and see a head explode, compared to choosing a dialog option, hearing it being said and waiting for an NPC to react to it. I would imagine that plays a big role in the market-situation.

1 Like
7

I think it is okay that you like that.

However, not everyone does and yet, most games out there are marketed to you. PR looks at the games that are popular today and the game developers make those games because that is what everyone buys.

What they miss is that those are the only games out there to buy.

2 Likes
8

That’s a good point. A lot of anime shows are all about interpersonal relationships, with whatever backstory is going on, is there mainly to give the characters an excuse to interact.

I’ll see your “New Game!” recommendation (I’ve watched both seasons at least once, and also read the first two books) and raise you a “Is It Wrong To Pick Up Girls In a Dungeon?” Despite the horrible name, this is a character-arc story about a young man trying to make something out of his life, not letting down the people he loves, and learning to believe in himself. The secondary characters all have their own agendas, and a few of them are definitely jerks, but on the whole it’s a positive, supportive world where people help each other out — interspersed with occasional bits of monster-fighting (which in this world is just something you do, like farming or working in a factory).

On the other hand, Japan has also given us things like Attack on Titan, and if that’s not a dark dystopia, I don’t know what is.

9

I got five paragraphs in and it still hasn’t gotten on topic, so fuck it.

Worlds without conflict are pretty boring, and games without conflict every ten feet tend to be pretty boring, too. Keep in mind that this general sentiment has been around forever. You can find discussion like “why are X media/genre’s projections of the future so dark” crop up at least every decade, and the answers to those discussion are just as relevant as always.

I’ll saddle up to the table and raise a World’s End/SukaSuka/Jesus Christ that Title is long about an iceman thawed in a world where humanity is extinct, where civilization is composed entirely of beast men living on floating landmasses, and where his job becomes taking care of a bunch of girls who are now the defenders of the realm and are metaphysically falling apart at the seams.

Eh, I may as well raise more and throw in Yokohama Shopping Log (YKK), a slice of life show after some unnamed cataclysm. Hell, there is an entire genre of post-apocalyptic slice of life, most of which are iyashi-kei (lit. healing story)

10

There’s a heck of a lot to discuss here. I’ll go through it one by one.

I feel this is too reductive. You mention Star Trek in the same post, while (since I’ve never watched it) three different episodes/movies I randomly clicked on all show conflict as part of the plot. SO I’m not sure if either you’re not being clear how this is the same as your initial post or that statement, or it simply isn’t.

Then there’s this idea:

…which is far more tractable, and honestly where a great number of games find themselves.

Thing is, the type of gameplay and the overall message of the game must be separated from each other. A game where you go around killing people isn’t necessarily saying that killing people is the ultimate answer. But there are most certainly situations where conflict is inevitable, even for the “good” party (this is debatable, but world history would imply its validity).

And then one has to consider the reality that Martin_H states, which is that combat in games is usually some of the “best” gameplay out there. It allows for player choice. It allows for “computer intelligence” (terrible way to put it, but just allowing the player to see the PC is doing some logic). It allows for plentiful content that can completely change the player’s approach based on the addition of just one or two enemies to a “wave.” It allows for “context” to gameplay, which despite many players’ disinterest in stories and such things is still something most people crave. It has many strengths that have little to do with combat itself but are highlighted best perhaps in combat focused games.

Meanwhile consider Mass Effect, a game with some of the most advanced dialog-based gameplay out there.

You have a list of two or three choices at any moment, rather than the half-dozen or more in any combat situation.

You have very minimal consequences to the choices, both short and long term. While the choices in combat typically lack long-term consequences, their immediate consequences are enormously varied (creating a completely new and unique combat situation).

There’s no accounting for player skill–you pick a choice and it happens–in contrast to combat where the player after making their choice must execute it successfully, firing a weapon accurately or slinging a grenade at the right location to inflict the maximum damage.

There’s no accounting for variability: the conversation ALWAYS plays out the same way if the player makes the same actions, while in combat you may find enemies taking different actions in the same situation, or also based on trivially different situations such as the player moving to a slightly different location on the map.

The simple reality is, combat is basically one of the most perfect types of gameplay out there, which is part of why it’s so popular. Find me an RPG with dialog that is at half the level of combat in each of these areas and then we’ll talk (actually we won’t because I’ll be playing it :p).

And then…

Eh, keep in mind there are also things like Death Note or Tokyo Ghoul or Psycho Pass or anything Yoko Taro ever or what have you. There’s plenty of conflict, much of it violent, in Japanese media. You’re probably right though that overall they’re less likely to go that direction.

1 Like
11

Apologies for the double post (though I’ve got enough content for two), but with games there’s the main consideration of how playable it is. Even if it’s less interesting, if you can make a game fun to play you can probably stick it in unique and less conflict-heavy situations.

1 Like
12

Combat is the easiest. :slight_smile:

I agree with much of what you say but again, I think as the writer of the article was saying, if you are surrounded by people who think like you, you will all have the same ideas, or she said something like that.

I disagree that combat is the most perfect form of game play. I find creative game play much more perfect as it allows the players to make the game play fit their style. It empowers them. It allows them to be unique.

As for showing you games that are just as good without combat? I doubt I could do that. First of all, it is difficult to find deep games that do not have as the focus combat. Second of all, you already believe that combat games are perfect. Therefore, it would be impossible to convince you anyway, since those styles of games fit your need. You enjoy them, you have no need to change anything.

However…I absolutely agree, as Rockodyne said, that a good deep game needs conflict. Conflict is essential because without it there can be no resolution. While sometimes it is appropriate for that resolution to come through combat, such as a faction attacking your village and you have to fight to save your home or family. But conflict is not just about war and the resolution is not just about killing. And in fact, in some fps shooters and survival games, the resolution never happens, it is always out of the picture frame.

Combat is easier than diplomacy. Making a game with social resolution rather than physical combat would be challenging. If you make a game where war and killing have real consequences such as death would turn off most of the players who like games that involve combat. They want the power, not the consequences.

Making a game with interpersonal conflict would be difficult…much more difficult. It would appeal to a different audience but one that is not readily available. The tools in game to resolve the conflict would be unfamiliar to the masses.

The reason these games have not taken off or have not happened at all is because the status quo is easier and that is what the writer of the article is saying.

I have looked around the net and read a bunch of articles based on this writer’s material. Every single one of them parrots what I have seen in the last few posts here. :slight_smile: You guys all think alike.

In fact, unlike here, I see a lot of defensiveness. Refreshingly, it is not here yet but I suspect it will by tomorrow.

So…to try to head that off, no one is saying you have to be the one to change things. You can keep on doing what you are doing. What we are saying though, is that there is a market out there. They may be hard to find. They may not buy a lot of games. They make not want games that are easy to make or games you like to play.

Nothing wrong with a little diversity though in the games we pump out. :slight_smile: And those untapped markets will be tapped eventually by someone.

1 Like
13

lol

Thanks for the recommendation! I’ve watched the first episode on youtube. I love how fighting monsters is like going to work there. Looks promising! Going just from the first episode though, it does seem to have the kind of interpersonal conflict that I find considerably more stressful to watch than shows where important characters die left and right and the fate of humanity is at stake with every battle. You know what I mean?

If you liked “New Game”, you should check out “Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid” - a show about a young woman who works as a software developer and lives together with a magical Dragon that works for her as a Maid. I’ve only watched 5 episodes, but I’m already fairly confident I’ll like the rest of it too.
And I liked “Polar Bear Café” too, although that one seems to me like it’s slightly more targeted towards children.
“Flying Witch” I’ve tried and it’s definitely not bad, but I’m not really compelled to keep watching either. I’m wondering why I like it less than the others.

Of course! I’m neither very knowledgable about their media overall, nor did I want to imply “percentages in marketshare” are different. But I get a very strong impression that there “positivity” seems to be a much more “mainstream and commercialized” thing in media. Most of the feel-good / slice of life shows that I know are from Japan, and I can only assume that they have many more that I don’t know.

Psycho Pass is on my “to watch list”. The first episode left a good impression. Same with Black Lagoon and Cowboy Bebop.
I liked Blame, Ajin, Schwarzes Marken and Knights of Sidonia. Those I’ve already watched all of.

Though that’s exactly what good combat gameplay is supposed to be like. Good stealth games offer a very wide range of expressing yourself within - or through avoidance of - combat.
It might be interesting for you to look into Chris Crawford’s work. I don’t know how much of it made it into released products, but he always talked and wrote a lot about how he want’s to make games about social interactions and was trying to come up with new ways to implement “communication” as a mechanic into games.

Thanks for the recommendations, I’ll check em out.

1 Like
14

I very much agree with what hey was saying about local maximum, or basically getting stuck in a rut. The longer you spend doing something a certain way, the greater the chance that you will miss the next evolution in whatever it is you do.

But to me his view is the dystopian one. When people want to go against human nature, try to just pick out what they see as the good parts and discard the rest, they miss the fact that it’s the totality that makes us who we are. It’s the conflicts that drive us forward to accomplish new things and survive. We are competitive by our nature. And in games we can push that competitiveness to it’s maximum level, or at least beyond what we can do in reality. It’s a way to heighten the experience as much as possible in an acceptable way.

I do think there is more opportunity for non violent conflict, it’s just as some have said more difficult. But his point was not even about violence really, it was against conflict and winning. Good luck on that, not a world I want to live in.

15

Probably true, but I would point to, for example, The Sims. The game that Stephen Spielberg walked away from because he couldn’t believe that people would want to play a game about taking out the trash. And then went on to be, at the time, the most successful (highest-grossing) video game in history. And one that I myself poured more hours into than almost any other game.

And of course there are other highly successful games in the simulation genre (SimCity, KSP, one could wish High Frontier, though alas that hasn’t caught on yet).

But I don’t think this means that any non-combat game needs to be a sim. It means that there are, quite likely, entire genres of optimistic, positive games that we probably haven’t even thought of yet. It’s easy to keep cranking out more titles like the old ones — and there’s nothing wrong with doing so — but I do think we should try to remain open to these new ideas that, just as in a few special moments in the past, may surprise is with runaway success, in part because they break the traditional molds.

1 Like
16

Dystopian futures aren’t a negative fantasy – they’re a positive one. People long for freedom, simplicity, and to feel important. Zombie apocalypse games are just a tribal fantasy born of modern livings disharmony with evolutionary norms.

That’s my theory anyway. But yeah, we are all tired of dealing with people and their sheeyit, why would you want that in a game?

2 Likes
17

I think this is a little unfair. I’m not saying combat is basically the perfect gameplay experience because I prefer them. I probably spend hundreds a year on visual novels with little or no “violent” conflict. I buy any decent point-and-click adventure game I see out there. I’m a huge fan of the Myst series and bought Obduction on release (which was sadly bugged to heck and back for myself for months, and when I finally got it to work I found the experience unsatisfactory).

I’m saying combat is basically the perfect gameplay experience because when I analyze it, that’s the answer I come up with. And quite frankly, saying “I can’t name you another type of gameplay that’s just as ‘good’ because you’re already biased” is kind of a cop-out. Go ahead and try me.

You say creative gameplay is better but viewed objectively its value as gameplay is lower. It’s less like a game and more like MS Paint–it’s a possibility space for the player to express themselves, but it is rarely a way for the player to actually interact with the game–to have the game respond meaningfully to the player’s actions. And interaction–actual exchange between the game and the player–is basically the definition of gameplay.

I’ll qualify again by saying I play a ton of visual novels (just bought Little Busters on Steam, and actually my favorite part is the baseball practice :P), which a lot of “hardcore” gamers don’t consider to be games. So don’t think I’m just some combat fanatic arguing from a foregone conclusion. I have yet to see an argument showing other types of gameplay being as meaningful (in a purely gameplay sense–game/player interaction, response to player choice, content which causes the player to approach a situation differently and learn from it, etc.) as combat.

1 Like
18

I just came back and saw all these posts after my first one. But before I saw them, and after I made that initial one, I did want to come back here and say:

All of my initial comments excepted, I don’t really disagree with the premise about outlooks on the future (which this thread almost immediately strayed from). However, I think you’ll find a much more positive look overall in books, which don’t really have…combat portrayal as a natural strength of the medium, let’s say (rather it’s a weakness I would say). In a medium that lends itself better to intricate detail and purely authored experiences, you can portray a more positive (and frankly more realistic, something many games miss by a mile) view of the future.

2 Likes
19

This is a really interesting point. It almost certainly is true that certain kinds of activities are easier/better to portray in some mediums than others. If games are particularly good at combat, then that drives games towards stories with lots of combat… which, if we’re talking about the future, might naturally mean a more dystopian futures rather than utopian ones.

However, I still stand by the Parable of The Sims, and suspect there are other forms of play that video games would be really good at, that we simply haven’t thought of yet… and oh yeah, to make that point on topic, we can hope that these new forms of play will let us portray optimistic futures that inspire kids to create a great future, rather than resign themselves to a bleak one.

2 Likes
20

Not unfair, because the way you said it initially made me believe that you preferred them. :slight_smile: As for the part about thinking like the people around you, I am afraid this is true of all of us at least a bit. I too have my little bubble. After our big election, I just shut out everyone who did not think like me, mostly because I was afraid, it was too difficult to deal with and it caused me pain.

Nothing wrong with that. And of course, maybe you do not do that when it comes to games…as you said later stated. I could only base it on what I read. :slight_smile: Glad that it does not apply to you.

I actually enjoy novels from Cornwell and others that talk about war. Novels are reading about what others did, not having to do it myself. :slight_smile: It is that flight and fight adrenaline rush that I do not enjoy in games. I am thinking of posting about that in another thread.

2 Likes